Peter G Szilagyi1, Stanley Schaffer2, Cynthia M Rand2, Phyllis Vincelli2, Ashley Eagan2, Nicolas P N Goldstein2, A Dirk Hightower3, Mary Younge4, Aaron Blumkin2, Christina S Albertin5, Byung-Kwang Yoo6, Sharon G Humiston7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Mattel Children's Hospital, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; pszilagyi@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Golisano Children's Hospital, School of Medicine and Dentistry, and. 3. Department of Clinical and Social Psychology, Children's Institute Rochester, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 4. Department of Public Health, Monroe County, New York. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Mattel Children's Hospital, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California at Davis, Davis, California; and. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess impact of offering school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) clinics using both Web-based and paper consent upon overall influenza vaccination rates among elementary school children. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial (stratified by suburban/urban districts) in upstate New York in 2014-2015. We randomized 44 elementary schools, selected similar pairs of schools within districts, and allocated schools toSLIV versus usual care (control). Parents of children at SLIV schools were sent information and vaccination consent forms via e-mail, backpack fliers, or both (depending on school preferences) regarding school vaccine clinics. Health department nurses conducted vaccine clinics and billed insurers. For all children registered at SLIV/control schools, we compared receipt of influenza vaccination anywhere (primary outcome). RESULTS: The 44 schools served 19 776 eligible children in 2014-2015. Children in SLIV schools had higher influenza vaccination rates than children in control schools county-wide (54.1% vs 47.4%, P < .001) and in suburban (61.9% vs 53.6%, P < .001) and urban schools (43.9% vs 39.2%; P < .001). Multivariate analyses (controlling for age, grade, vaccination in previous season) confirmed bivariate findings. Among parents who consented for SLIV, nearly half of those notified by backpack fliers and four-fifths of those notified by e-mail consented online. In suburban districts, SLIV did not substitute for primary care influenza vaccination. In urban schools, some substitution occurred. CONCLUSIONS:SLIV raised seasonal influenza vaccination rates county-wide and in both suburban and urban settings. SLIV did not substitute for primary care vaccinations in suburban settings where pediatricians often preorder influenza vaccine but did substitute somewhat in urban settings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Assess impact of offering school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) clinics using both Web-based and paper consent upon overall influenza vaccination rates among elementary school children. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial (stratified by suburban/urban districts) in upstate New York in 2014-2015. We randomized 44 elementary schools, selected similar pairs of schools within districts, and allocated schools to SLIV versus usual care (control). Parents of children at SLIV schools were sent information and vaccination consent forms via e-mail, backpack fliers, or both (depending on school preferences) regarding school vaccine clinics. Health department nurses conducted vaccine clinics and billed insurers. For all children registered at SLIV/control schools, we compared receipt of influenza vaccination anywhere (primary outcome). RESULTS: The 44 schools served 19 776 eligible children in 2014-2015. Children in SLIV schools had higher influenza vaccination rates than children in control schools county-wide (54.1% vs 47.4%, P < .001) and in suburban (61.9% vs 53.6%, P < .001) and urban schools (43.9% vs 39.2%; P < .001). Multivariate analyses (controlling for age, grade, vaccination in previous season) confirmed bivariate findings. Among parents who consented for SLIV, nearly half of those notified by backpack fliers and four-fifths of those notified by e-mail consented online. In suburban districts, SLIV did not substitute for primary care influenza vaccination. In urban schools, some substitution occurred. CONCLUSIONS: SLIV raised seasonal influenza vaccination rates county-wide and in both suburban and urban settings. SLIV did not substitute for primary care vaccinations in suburban settings where pediatricians often preorder influenza vaccine but did substitute somewhat in urban settings.
Authors: Jade Benjamin-Chung; Benjamin F Arnold; Kunal Mishra; Chris J Kennedy; Anna Nguyen; Nolan N Pokpongkiat; Stephanie Djajadi; Anmol Seth; Nicola P Klein; Alan E Hubbard; Arthur Reingold; John M Colford Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Daniel Molnar; Anastassia Anastassopoulou; Barbara Poulsen Nautrup; Ruprecht Schmidt-Ott; Martin Eichner; Markus Schwehm; Gael Dos Santos; Bernhard Ultsch; Rafik Bekkat-Berkani; Alfred von Krempelhuber; Ilse Van Vlaenderen; Laure-Anne Van Bellinghen Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.526
Authors: Anna T Nguyen; Benjamin F Arnold; Chris J Kennedy; Kunal Mishra; Nolan N Pokpongkiat; Anmol Seth; Stephanie Djajadi; Kate Holbrook; Erica Pan; Pam D Kirley; Tanya Libby; Alan E Hubbard; Arthur Reingold; John M Colford; Jade Benjamin-Chung Journal: Vaccine Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 3.641